We do. >> Ready? >> Are you Are you ready? >> Yeah. Sorry. >> I'd like to call the meeting to order. Will you please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance? >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Now it's official. >> Yeah. All right, I'll go in one second.
Under the Sunshine Law, adequate notice in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act was provided on April 2nd, 2026 of this meeting's date, time, and location. The agenda was mailed to the Cranberry Press and Home News Tribune, posted on the Township Bulletin board, mailed to those requesting personal notice, and filed with the municipal
clerk. Roll call, please. Um, Miss Anderson is out. Miss Elbidawi is not here yet. Mr. Giddings >> here, >> Miss Conirum here, Mr. Mildenberg >> here, >> Mr. Mucelli >> here, >> Mr. Stewart is not here yet, and Mr.
Pulk is not here, and Mr. Whitman >> here. >> Okay, thank you. We have a quorum. >> Okay, first order of business, I want to thank our board professionals and our board for coming tonight. Uh this is special meeting tonight and we did make accommodations for our our client that's
uh next to try to hear that again and see if we can move this along. So thank you all for coming tonight. Please note that Iman is here. Okay, first item on the agenda is PB4- 412-25
1250 South River Road LLC. This is a continuation of the of our meeting from last week. Um, if we have it are the witnesses that were sworn in last week, if if there's any new ones, we need to swear them in.
>> Correct. But but witnesses that have already been sworn in, they don't have to be reworn because this is a continuation of that hearing. >> Okay. Very good. >> Okay. You got to put your mic on, please. >> For the record, Frank Petrino with the
law firm of Euras. We represent the applicant 1250 South River Road LLC. We were here last week. Um there was some discussion about uh revising our proposal to uh eliminate
a variance uh provide some of the parking as bank parking and so forth. We have a new witness tonight, uh, Brian Campbell, who reminded me that he was here in 2000 when we got our
original approval. He's with the law firm of, uh, that Mike Lancama is with, and uh, he's my only witness, so if we could swear him in, >> if you could raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give will be the truth? >> Yes.
>> So, sworn or affirm, please state your full name and spell your last name. Brian Conway c a y u Brian uh I'm did you want to say so >> no I just want to hear his credentials >> yeah I was just going to uh Brian what's
your educational background so I'm a I'm a cert I'm a licensed landscape architect and professional planner in New Jersey I a graduate of Rutgers of envir Cook college with a degree in environmental planning and design I've been a licensed landscape architect since 1992 2 and a license planner since
1994. Um, both my licenses are current and I've been before this board before for the original application in 2000. >> So, we're offering Brian as a expert in landscape. >> Yes, I I'll accept that. And any alumni
at Cook College is dear to me. So, >> I there once semester a year also. >> Did you? >> Yeah. Every year. Well, Brian, you've put together a list of uh the modifications you've made to the plan since the last hearing. I believe all
the board members uh have those revisions. It's approximately how many sheets? Eight sheets. Correct. Uh the 11 by7s are the plan sheets as well as the two turning templates um turning radius sheets on the back.
>> Okay. And I think to the extent that you didn't bring them with you, we brought extra copies of the uh um exhibits that were submitted on Tuesday, I think. >> Yeah. And we have received a um a review
memo from Mr. Hoder dated April 16, 2026. And Brian, if you want to just uh go through your testimony and and indicate the changes to the plans from the ones that the board saw last week.
>> Certainly. I have uh two exhibits I'm probably going to speak with. >> Since they're new exhibits, do we need to label them differently from the last time? >> If they're new, they should be labeled. >> Yeah, probably. >> Yeah. These aren't in the plan set. They're new.
>> Okay. So, this is a color version of the landscape plan that you have before you. >> What's the date? >> Um, >> April 13, 26, sheet number five. It's detailed landscape and lighting plan.
>> April 13th, >> 2026. >> Day one. Mr. Muller. No, it would be. We're going to continue with the numbering consistenc. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, I think >> I don't have my list. >> I think we're up to
>> A5. >> A5. Thank you. >> And then the other is the um turning templates that you have before you. It's the same same one. Should we mark this also as A6? Yep. >> Yep.
What's the date of that? >> Of the same date, April 13, 26. And it's E1. I'm sorry, there's two of these, E1 and E2. >> Mark A6 and A7. >> And A7.
>> A6 is E1 and A7 is E2. Okay. So, last week um at the board meeting, there were several issues concerned of concern that were raised by the board. Um we've gone ahead and revised the plans to address these issues and I'd like to just review the revisions one at
a time. The first one and probably the most salient is the relocation of the trailer parking to the south. Well, sorry. We moved it closer to the building and
we we're left with a 36.3 foot setback at the north um northwest corner I guess from the closest corner of the trailer parking to the uh property line. >> So, we eliminated that fair. Correct. >> Yeah, I have the list. So, we have
trailer parking spaces are all going to be 12 feet except for the three southernmost near the building which are going to be 14 and the one northernmost which is also going to be 14 to help facil facilitate access into those spaces that were a little bit more
difficult than the center spaces. >> So, we're requesting a variance from 15 ft. >> Correct. The other um thing that was affected by this change was in moving the trailer parking over. The trailer parking is now within 10 ft of the building. At the at
the southern side, which is another variant, it's closer than 10 ft. Another thing that was mentioned at the meeting last week was to bank five parking spaces. So, we took the five parking spaces um parallel to the building further away to the north. Um,
in doing so, our closest corner of the parking is now 25 a week, 25 ft off that property line there and which is compliant. >> So, stop again. So, as long as they remain banked, >> correct? >> Compliant if they're built,
>> we need a variance. We're requesting the variance and the ability to bank the five that would violate the setback. >> And the setback would be 14.04 04 ft from the closest point of the bank parking spaces to the property line.
Okay. The bank parking spaces were counted in the overall site impervious coverage. The proposed ad if if if we do not build the um banked parking spaces, the coverage will be reduced by 810 square
ft. We're asking for the variance for the to include the 810 square feet, but in the likelihood that these these parking spaces are never built, the impervious coverage will also be decreased by 810 square feet. >> Frank, if I may interrupt for a moment,
uh it wasn't clear to me what you were saying about the um the variance with respect to the setback for the bank parking. They're still seeking variance, correct? We're still seeking it, but we're not going to build all of the 132. We're not going to build all.
>> We're going to bank five, >> but but get the variance. >> But we still want the variance. If we need them, we have we'll build them. Then there'll be some mess assuming this was approved. You'll have some mechanism resolution where we we don't have to come back to the court. We just build
the additional space. >> Yeah. I don't even Okay, we could put it in the resolution. I'm not even sure we need it in the resolution. Okay, >> if you have bank spaces, but probably it's best just a matter of caution to put in the resolution. >> Your resolution.
>> Okay. So, with the bank parking spaces kept as bank parking spaces, there's no variance required for the setback for the that new parking lot. Um, I guess there was some question about the tenant breakdown. It's roughly
6040, 60 to the south and 40 to the north. Um so the parking required it'll be 43 office for one 42 office for the other because it's 85 office spaces required. Um 24
I'm sorry 24 for the warehouse on the south side for a total of 67 and 16 for the warehouse on the north side for a total of 58. So we're required to have 125 cars plus we have five banks for a total
of 130 total. >> There was some I guess >> stop and I think that's a way to exceed 125 >> the the overall site for that as opposed to differentiating between the north and south sides in terms of it's just
they're five you're five over you need to leave. >> Yes. And then the um there were I guess there were striping directional arrows requested to be added to the plan. So we added some striping in the parking lot. Um a stop bar and directional arrows at the exit and a stop bar and directional
a stop bar directional arrows at the parking lot also at the intersection. I'm going to flip over to the truck turning. So this is A6, >> correct? This was the the A6 which is for the fire truck and we had sent this
to um Michael Kervin of the Cranberry Fire Department. Um basically the truck can come in, turn around in the parking lot and come back out. Um he indicated by email that he was um he acknowledged by email that the
access looked good. So, >> is there a copy of that email that's been sent? >> Gina was copied on it. >> You have a copy? Okay. >> Thank you. >> So now A7 which is drawing E2 exhibit
A7. This is the tractor trailer parking. The uh one on the left is the tractor trailer coming in and the one on the right would be the tractor trailers leaving. Um so all of these worked fine. Um for this last one to the north, we
ended up having to increase this radius slightly. >> Okay. Um to get this last space to come out clean, but all the traffic works fine. The trucks can come and go. There's no issue with any of the spaces. >> Back to A5.
>> Correct. This is the landscape detailed landscape and lighting plan sheet five on your set. So we revised the buffer plantings along the access road um to be in compliant with the cranberry shade tree recommended plantings. Basically what we
did we went through their uh plant list and you know for the evergreen trees we pulled evergreen trees for the flowering trees we pulled flowering trees and for the shade trees we pulled shade trees. We also have um shrubs which we pulled from the recommended shrub plantings. So
the um buffer along the access road and between the trailer parking and the parking lot is evergreen trees, flowering trees, shade trees, and uh shr flower flowering and evergreen shrubs consistent with the ordinance and the recommended plantings. And on the top of
the sheet above the plan, I have indicated the length of the buffers and in every instance we exceed the planting requirements in the ordinance for the buffers. A a caveat is that along the access road, the existing shade trees
along the access road I had counted as part of trees that were part of that buffer because we really couldn't plant any additional because there were already trees there and that's also noted in the chart. We also along the basin I did some rain
garden style biodetention basin plantings along the access road on the far side again to create some biodiversity and to help some with some water filtration and the like. Um for imperous coverage our overall imperous coverage um after we made all
these changes is going to be 58.75% proposed which is also a variance. It's up slightly from what we had previously. However, it would be reduced if we don't build the banks. >> Correct. By 800 810 square feet. And the
other um item I wanted to just address which I don't really have on a drawing that we can talk about was we removed it's it's on the sheets if you'd like to take a look, but we removed the under drains from the um control structure details so that the basins will function more as an infiltration basin and the
water will be piped out of them. Um, in addition, we received the memo from David Hoder today. Um, we reviewed the memo internally and uh, we had a discussion with David about it. There's a few items in the memo particularly related to like the storm water report
and those types of things that we're still working through, but um, should the board choose to um, view favorably on the application, we'd be very happy to work with David through all those minor technical details to completion. >> And we think that we can comply with all
>> correct. >> You say you can comply with that with everything that David has recommended in his report. >> Correct. >> And he's going to testify and he might find and I think he's going to indicate that some been satisfied. But those that have not yet been satisfied, you comply.
>> Correct. We work together to come to a satisfactory result. >> Sure. Um, if you wanted to recap what we're looking for for variances, the other thing that we didn't really talk about tonight, but I think it was at the last meeting was the EIS waiver.
>> Well, I would get to that. >> What was that? I'm sorry. >> Have an EIS. We have a submission waiver. Uh, not to submit. We didn't submit an environmental impact statement. again the job is was built 25 years ago. >> I have nothing for this time.
>> Okay. >> All right. I'm going to turn it over to our professionals. >> I don't know who wants to go first. The three of you. You >> Okay. >> Okay. This is Dave Hoder, engineer for the board. Uh yes, I did a letter on the 16th. Um, and I did talk to the
engineer, the uh, landscape architect today about my letter and they did say they would do most of the items. I'm just going to bring up some things that I think may uh, still be of of concern. One is um, I think the board last week talked about not requiring sidewalks
along the perimeter of this property. Uh, one thing I can say is that the county has been very strong on requiring sidewalks even on applications that don't have any work in the county road. So, that's something that you're going to have to go through. All you got to do
is prove to me that you got the county approval one way or another. >> Uh, yes. Yes. Uh so um and then uh on off- streetet parking that 10-ft distance that they're asking a waiver for or variance for is right by the
building. Uh uh there may be other areas on the other side of the site where it's closer than 10 ft, but it's not shown on this plan. So it's I think this board should give them that waiver. Um in regard to the fire company, I think we got a
letter today. So, I'll make sure that they they conform with the fire company's uh requirements as part of my my compliance. Uh yes, they did not submit a new storm order plan uh in a couple of days that they had. They
probably couldn't have done it because they're usually pretty thick, two inches or so thick worth of paper. Uh, I can tell you though that the previous stormwater plan was acceptable and this change of less than a couple percent of impervious coverage is going to produce almost the
exact same book. I'm very happy though that they're going to take the under drains out. They're going to provide groundwater recharge now, which is what I kind of asked for as part of one of the best management practices. So, that's good. ter does that include the water the that
rain garden they're they're proposing in that way >> yeah because the the rain garden eventually runs from there to the detention basin >> right >> so but uh in any in any case um I I don't think that um the storm water plan will change very much though I did ask
for I think I asked for um uh pipe calculations which we didn't get from the last one so that has to be added >> correct >> in regard to landscaping I think they did a pretty good job of providing the uh additional landscaping um in and around the entrance, uh in and around the um trailer storage units, in
around the parking. The one thing in my letter I did ask for, and this is up to the board, I always like to ask for special treatment around entrances to the property in uh in and around where they, you know, meet roadways. Now, they
did not address that in the the the parking area to the I guess it's the west um where the cars come in. Now, it's up to the board if you feel there should be some additional landscaping in that area. There is some low stuff, but not a lot.
>> Could you just reexlain that what you just said? >> Okay. Um, I did ask for uh the ordinance has has um verbiage about adding special treatment in regard to landscaping around entrances. >> Okay. So, entrances are sort of they
sort of stand out and that you know you know where you're going and you're not going to hit the curb and you're not going to hit uh you know the grass with your with your car. Um so they did do that around the entrance for the truck parking area, but there's no landscaping uh there's very little landscaping about
around the area where the cars come in, which is up on the other part of the site, which is not shown on this site plan. It's shown on sheet one and on the survey plan. Uh, and Liz is bringing it up here. >> Yeah. So, um, I I think the, uh,
applicants should analyze that and and possibly provide some additional landscaping. It wouldn't be much. >> Can I ask you a question about that while we're here? So, my question to you, Dave, would you consider the employee parking lot changes substantial to this plan?
>> No. >> You mean from the old plan? From this last? >> Yeah. So you're cutting off you're cutting off the employee parking lot to and and and kind of changing the whole configuration around, right? >> Well, that's correct. That's correct. So >> they last week they they they did do a turning template to show that you can
they can get around, >> right? But it's it's a change from the old from the old plan because the parking just ran along the front of the building and wasn't >> like it is now. >> Generally, Mr. Chairman, we like the idea of cutting off the two between truck parking >> and and and I'm not
>> car parking. It is a change. Yes. So where I'm getting at is that since it's changed, I think we should require some landscaping at the employee parking lot into >> There you go. Thank you. Okay. So >> long way of getting around >> came around to the same conclusion in a in a different way. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Which happens to me a lot it seems. Uh but I'm an engineer that's why. Uh okay. And then uh pretty much everything else uh in the uh in the letter they said they would do. I would I would defer to Liz on any additional comments for for landscaping and and of
course uh Andrew on any of the traffic items. So really that's what I have. Mr. Chairman >> um the entrance that we're talking about was built 25 years ago. So, it's not really part of this application. So, I'd like you to take
>> You're changing the employee parking lot >> about 300 ft away. >> Employee parking lot. >> Are we not changing the employee parking lot? >> Not in the area where we're talking about landscaping. >> Are we changing the employee park?
>> Yeah. To the better. >> Okay. So, we're changing it. >> Okay. >> Okay. We'll leave that to >> We love industrial parks. I understand. >> Absolutely. >> I understand.
>> We're very proud of that industrial parks. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And >> I just have a few uh comments. I didn't put out an updated letter because um most of the items in my letter were addressed or will be addressed with
revised plans. Uh the bank parking spaces are the additional or new spaces. So they're really keeping the 125 and banking the additional spaces. It's really just a reconfiguration. Um there are no uh EV spaces proposed
and testimony was given at the last meeting that it's a reconfiguration of existing parking. the five new spaces which will be banked anyway don't trigger the EV requirement and that was the testimony that was provided. Uh Dave covered the frontage sidewalk. I did go
back and look. I think it was discussed that there might be paths winding around. I don't know if they're maintained. I didn't see any. I think um there's no fronted sidewalk and it was discussed that maybe the way it was done in the past was an undulating walkway. I
didn't see it. may be out there and maybe it's not maintained and maybe there's overgrown with grass. There are uh concrete spillways within the basins that does account as a pedestrian uh walkway. But anyway, I just wanted to make that point and Dave has made the
point as well. Um site triangles are shown on the plan. I I know in uh Dave's letter that the uh site triangles um were questioned to be put on the landscape plans. They're they're shown on one of the plans. I don't know if it
was on the landscape. So, you could just um make sure it's shown on the landscape plan so that any of the plantings don't necessarily interfere with the >> Okay, it is there now. Okay. um the trailer spaces and with the new
configuration. This is more of um your concern on getting the trucks into the spaces, but there is an offset. It's not that many feet. I'm just wondering why is there an offset? Why couldn't it be lined up with
the spaces behind the building? It's just a couple feet. And my thinking is the spaces that are next to each other that are offset might be a little bit difficult visually for a truck driver to get in with a truck that's out a little
bit, but you can go through that testimony. >> So the area that Andrew is talking about is the southern side and in order to get those parking spaces to work, we had to make them wider. Okay? So, if we were to move everything else forward, we would have to probably >> And those are by the building, but the
ones next to it, the 15, not the three by the building, but the 15 next to that go back uh go west uh by a couple of feet. Uh and it's an offset from those three spaces next to the building.
Could there be a straight edge from the building all the way out rather than having that jog for that space just beyond the building? >> And maybe it won't work with the turning templates if that's >> correct. The the area we're talking about again is on the south southern
side and those first three spaces that are closer to the curb to the west >> um they they needed to be wider to get the the trailers out of those spaces. That's why those three spaces are wider and that's why the um northernmost
spaces wider to facilitate the turning coming out. So the um other 11 spaces in between at 12 ft wide require that a little bit of extra depth. >> Those other spaces, why couldn't they be moved down? So there was a straight line >> here. Now they offset by the build up
the top. Yeah. Why can't you make them even all the way across? >> I I thought I'd just as I understand it the the the 11 spaces in the middle at 12 feet wide the turning templates if we move them forward they start to become troublesome by having that little bit of
extra depth offset there they work at 12. >> Okay. >> Are you okay with that Andrew? But they have a a physical reason and the turning templates um back that up and uh I can support that based on turning analysis.
My concern was the two spaces next to each other that were slightly offset. A vehicle has no somebody backing up into one doesn't have the perspective with the other one sticking out. Now he has to back up a couple extra feet. But that would be up to your drivers to handle that.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, after that, the fire department, I did review uh the email. It says, "Yes, access looks good. Just need to confirm that the there are no gates or that the gates will have knock uh Knox key access." And I'm sure that's
covered in uh Mr. Hoder's letter as well. So, you provide those. Um there's two signs to the uh rear of the trailer spaces that are shown there. Um, >> move them back.
>> Move them back or protect them somehow. I think trailers backing up are likely to be hitting those signs and you're going to find that a maintenance. >> We'll we'll keep >> whatever you can do to make that. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> That's what you said. What are you going to do,
>> sir? >> Are the signs going to be moved? >> We have some small some small parking trailer parking signs, I guess, in the back over here. Yeah. just to slide them further off the curb so that if the trailers back up they don't hit them. >> Thank you.
>> And those were the comments that I had. >> Andrew, in terms of your letter from April 2nd, of course, that was before the revision. Is there anything on pages two and three that you're not satisfied
with or should make conditions? >> No. Uh, I went through my letter and they had satisfied all the conditions or they said they would address them with revised plans and I know they put plans together within the week to get something to present tonight, but they
will be going through and uh cleaning up the plans. So, I I don't see a problem with them addressing it. >> Okay. But there'll be but you're seeing further revisions that you should review. >> Correct. >> Okay. They still have to meet the items in the letter as a condition of the approval.
Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, so can you just provide testimony on the sort of interweaving of the landscaping that you're proposing and the BMS because I know they're
they're on separate sheets on your site plan set. Uh, and so I I just want some testimony or or an explanation as to or description as you know if if you're coming down the drive
aisle or not, you know, the driveway to the to the uh development. >> So in the situation here, as every situation when we do plantings on a burm, the goal is to always get the plantings as near the top of the burm as possible. So you get the full benefit of
the height of the burm in addition to the planting. From what I recall, the burm was approximately 3 ft tall. >> Okay. >> And this evergreen um row hedge that that wraps around this corner wraps around on the crest the top of that BM.
>> Okay. So, so, uh, sorry. Um, so when we're drive, it was somebody driving by driving in on that, you know, on the access road, the landscaping will be 3 feet above the elevation of the land of the access road.
>> If I may, if the burm is something like that, >> yeah, >> the evergreen trees are going to be near the top of the bur. >> Okay. And then the um ornamental trees and the shrubs will be on the down slope of the garden. >> Okay. >> So it's going to be the plantings are going to be that width of plantings is
going to take up the kind of width of the >> you just >> A5. >> But I guess what I'm asking is is what is the elevation of the entry access way to these BMS? Is it is it you know that
it'll be three feet off of that? Yeah, probably a little bit higher than that because the it's the access drive, then a six inch curb. Then we're going to be sloping up to the burm. The burm is about 3 feet tall in the center of it from the grade that's there, but the grade may be a little bit higher than from the street.
>> I can take a look at the grade in if you want more specific information, but >> I'm just trying to get an understanding what it might Sorry about I don't know, but what it might look like. Um, and just so I can understand because right now you have these very beautiful or you know older um,
evergreens and you know that are do a really nice job of of screening and I guess I'm curious to what extent I mean obviously you you'll have to take those down to make these improvements and to what extent the proposed landscaping
will sort of um substitute them you know >> so the the existing trees you know when I was out there. I did a tree inventory out there. I was out there for, you know, several hours while I was going through that. Most of the evergreen trees are probably between 15 and say 25 ft tall. >> Yeah.
>> The proposed evergreens are going to be at 7 to 8 ft. >> So, probably within a, you know, 5year window, they'll probably get up to the, you know, 12 to 15 foot height. So, they should, you know, start to fill in reasonably quickly. Then they usually slow down a little bit after that.
>> Okay. and >> and the the spacing is very similar to what we did originally in terms of the you know it was the same hand that drew both plans. So the spacing for the evergreen trees is going to be emulate, you know, emulating what's currently exists on the site.
>> And I, you know, on the um the site plan sheet that shows the burming, >> do they do they connect? There's one that's sort of kind of more north south along the >> There's a gap between the BMS right at this corner of the parking. >> Um this BM kind of wraps this way and
then this BM is an individual >> and you have to keep those separate. Okay. >> It's the way the grades work out. >> So, I'm sorry. >> It's the way the grades worked out. >> Okay. All right. Um All right. I don't have actually any additional comments. I I was unclear about the Birmingham. So,
I'm I'm happy with that. >> So, um are all of So, we've satisfied all your questions at least initially. I mean, there's some housekeeping items that that have to be done here, obviously, but um all right. At this point in time,
I like to open it up to the board for questions and comments. Um, no, there's big improvements and we do appreciate that. It's uh it's a careful balance because you know we do want you to rent this obviously we
and and there's things that are not ideal and we're you know the impervious you're adding about 22,000 square feet of of impervious and it's somewhat based on hypothetical because you don't necessarily have a tenant yet. But you know we do appreciate that this has been
emptied for two years and we want it you know uh it's good for you to rent it. it's good for the town to rent it. So, um I think the biggest concern really is the um in terms of the parking and
banking the five spots, I wouldn't be opposed to only banking three spots because those other two spots would still you still be compliant. So, if it helps because when you look at the parking lot on the other side, it is way too overjammed and you know getting
those two more spots if that helps you. I don't I don't see an issue with that. You know, I think um that's better than having cars parked somewhere somewhere else where they shouldn't be parked. Um but that's that's really your call in my mind. Um in terms of the screening for
the trailers, it looks like the street, the access road is is about 108, which is an elevation, which is about the same elevation as the the last 14oot spot. and your burm, your your two berms, the high points are about four feet above
that, which is nice. Uh it goes down to three feet between your car parking lot and the trailer parking lot. Um and then it kind of ends, you know, the trailers I assume are about 12 feet tall approximately. Um so
you've got seven to eight foot evergreens on a three to four foot burm, which I think is great. you know, that's that's getting you close to the um 12 feet. You're going to see them for probably f you're going to see the trail the the trailers for five or six years
like you said until they start to take off. You're always going to see them from the parking lot along the building, but you do have off you have windows and offices, so you can't run your screening right up tight to the building. Um, I
would say anything that you could do there obviously is is a better presentation for your for your office space and cars. Um, I was kind of curious with the two BMS, the two 4 foot BMS, why not I appreciate that it's not just
a straight BM, um, but why not go from four feet down to two feet and then back up to four feet. Get those trees in the in the corner of you a little bit higher. Screen the trailers a little more. Or is there any reason that you not to do that? I guess >> we'd certainly be willing to study the
BMS to see if we could increase the height a little bit. >> Yeah, just because that corner view is where you're, you know, >> there's a balance to try to strike between steepness of the BM and height of the BM. >> Sure. >> Make the BM higher and it's too steep. >> They look they look awful.
>> Yeah. I think if you if you could just get a little bit more height there, a little more screening on the diagonal, that's where you're you're going to see the trailers a lot from from the access roads. So, you know, our whole intent is to screen the the trailers as much as possible. >> We could take a look at that. If we can get any additional height, we certainly
can do so. >> Um, the one thing I could you explain the the dolly, the concrete dolly path and how that works. I'm just not I'm just as familiar with that.
>> Concrete dolly. >> Concrete dolly pad is where you place the Sorry. Oh, it's Josh Adler. I was sworn in before. The concrete dolly pad is where they place the landing gear >> and so it prevents it from damaging the asphalt. >> All right.
>> I couldn't understand where it was where it is. Now I understand why. Yes. >> It's everything I had. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Can I can I ask?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Um I first of all I just want to say I appreciate all the biodiversity and all the extra foliage. It looks like it's going to be um very beautiful. I'm just asking with regards to um the start of this project. Is this something you want to do right away or
do you want to wait for a tenant and then do this? >> I want to do this right away to attract the tenant. >> Okay. Thank you. Good luck. >> Any other questions? The only thing that I would say is that the sensitivity
around understanding the evolution of warehousing is important, right? A 25-year-old warehouse is completely different than a new application because that is a true distribution center. And so I believe what this applicant is asking the board to recognize is that
change and then in 25 years warehousing was warehousing but the to attract a tenant it needs to be more of a distribution center. So I think what's been done here is a a healthy recognition of that evolution by both sides and I wish you the best of luck
getting into >> any other question I have I do have some questions. Any other questions from the board? Okay. Um the question I have is for um your trucks backing in toward the building. What's going to prevent them from running into the building? Is
there, you know, do you have ballards next to the building? Do you have bumps for the, you know, where the trucks wheels set to stop in the back? Because you're right up next to the building. So, >> understood. I I believe there's going to be ballers there, but really not much different than them backing a trailer up
to unload. They were going to back up to a loading dock. It's not much different not much of a different experience than that. >> Andrew, do we need ballots right up next to the building or something there or >> The plans I received do show ballots? Yeah, there's there are six Ballards
against the building and then two others at a 90° angle in case there's a sideways uh slip. >> Okay, so we're good on that then. >> No, you probably want to add one or two more because um you know if the truck's sort of out of out of its spot
or if it's a a truck that's a little thinner. >> Yeah, ballot's cheaper than running into the building. um as we've seen this past week. Um, I guess the second question is from you. I guess we don't want a a
formal connection between the employee parking and the truck parking, but right next to the building there, is there any do you envision any need to have any kind of a walkway along there for security reasons or fire reasons or anything like that where because that's
kind of a dead, you know, is there going to be access between the, you know, where somebody can get in there if there was a fire in there or something? Yeah, between these two points. Is there, you know, anything that we should put in there or consider putting in there?
>> I couldn't I couldn't speak to the fire needs because I would imagine if they were going to have a fire issue, they would come down to the lower area or the upper area depending upon where they were. Um, the main part of this sidewalk is to collect the employees from this lot and bring them to the entrances. >> Right.
>> We could certainly if if there was an e situation, it's going to be a lawn. Somebody could certainly pass through the lawn for whatever. But is the lawn accessible for people to walk on then? I mean, it's not shrubs right up to the building where people can't get through there. >> There's probably about 10 ft between the
last one. >> So, there is some kind of a a path, you know, an informal pathway there. People have for whatever emergency reason they if they have to get from trailer catches on fire, they got to run through to the other side or whatever or vice versa.
So, okay. And did you get the formal email from the fire company then? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. So, let me review this now. Um, and trying to move this forward. You're
asking for three variances. Is that what we got here right now? >> Our board. How many variances we got? I got three. Unless there's more. >> Yeah, I >> three and a couple conditions or what? Or some other things. >> I got four. >> You got four. What are the four
variances? Let's see. Um the width of the trailer spaces. >> That's one. >> Um the distance 10 foot distance from the buildings. >> Two. >> Um the distance from the property line. >> Three. >> And the fourth one is the impermanence cover.
>> Purpose coverage. Correct. Okay. So there's four variances. >> Submission wa. >> There's actually two submission waiverss, aren't there? For the EIS and the traffic uh and the traffic assessment. and the traffic assessment. There's no
traffic impact study. >> There was a traffic letter submitted. >> Okay. >> So, it's just that one and then there is the um design waiver for the um >> Y. Okay.
>> So, we do we feel comfortable let granting that then those waiverss? >> Yeah. Okay. I'm looking at somebody shake their head. Yes. Here. >> Okay. >> Now, Mr. Chair, before the board acts, you do want to open it to the public. I
understand it's I'm not sure you're going to get a big response, but at least >> No, I will do that. Thank you. Before I make a motion here. Um, at this point in time, I'd like to open uh this application up to the public for any
public comment on it. Hearing nobody from the public, I'm going to close the public portion of this meeting. I'll try to craft the res. Now, the resolution for approval is going to be contingent on everything being worked out with our professionals. So, that's
all got to be satisfied with them. Okay. We we could put together the resolution. It you know, >> well, we have to go through compliance. >> Yeah. Well, they got to they you've got to, you know, work all the thing and when they finally say okay, then the resolution will come back here for
final, you know, we'll approve it then. I mean, we're going to grant it, but they just got to work out all the details. >> Yeah, it's got to go through, right? >> What you'll do, the next step will be for the board to adopt the resolution. >> Right. The adoption. That's what I meant. The adoption of the resolution
>> now drafted or circulated to the law professionals for their input and to Frank. Once we have that final which you gonna try and turn this around >> that's what I meant >> compiance all of the compies will be >> correct
>> correct >> now how how quickly that gets done is is up to hopefully pretty quick. >> Right. That's what I meant to say. So, okay. So,
I'm going to put a motion on the table that we approve PB412-25 with the four variances asked for and
all of the other items that compliance issues that need to be worked out with our board professionals, >> right? Including all the conditions plus the one submission waiver plus the one design w >> correct. One way or one sub, >> right? One for submission and one for design.
>> Correct. >> Okay. With that said, can I have a motion to approve, please? >> So moved. >> Can I have a second, please? >> All right. Roll call for PB412-25.
Miss Albadawi, >> yes. >> Mr. Giddings, >> yes. >> Miss Coner, >> yes. >> Mr. Mildenberg, >> yes. >> Mr. Mucelli. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Whitman. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion passed. >> Thank you for your time.
>> Yep. We're going to take a quick five minute break everybody and then um we'll let them clear and then we'll start the second part of our Okay, calling the meeting back to order. Andrew, are you leaving? >> Leave quickly.
>> Run now while you can. >> Okay. Second part of our meeting is consistency review. Cranberry Township Ordinance 04-26-09 an ordinance of the township of Cranberry, Middle Sex County, New Jersey, adopting a redevelopment plan
for 12660 South River Road designated as block 5, lot 18 on the Cranberry Township Tax Map pursuant to NJ SA4A-12A-7. >> Okay. Do do you uh do you need to swear me in already?
>> I can swear you in. >> You probably should. Let's make it legal. >> Yeah. >> Can't hurt too. >> Can you raise your hand? >> Good night. >> Good night. >> Do you swear and affirm to tell the whole truth? >> I do. >> Okay. Um All right. So, what we have
here tonight is the redevelopment plan for 1260 South River Road. Um what we're talking about tonight is not adoption of the plan but rather uh consistency of the plan with our master plan. Um as you may remember at the
beginning of last month in the beginning of March I presented to the board an area need of redevelopment for this uh block five lot 18 1260 South River Road. Uh the board
made the recommendation to the township committee to designate um the site as an area a condemnation area in need of redevelopment. The township committee subsequently did designate it as an area the site as an area in need of redevelopment and directed uh my firm to
prepare a redevelopment plan. So let me just go through the redevelopment plan as I think everybody knows it supersedes the underlying zoning and the way we have written it. So this is essentially a zoning ordinance for the site. Um so
like any zoning ordinance the township committee introduced it. They introduced it I believe on Monday the 13th, April 13th and we have been and they sent it or referred it to us to for master plan consistency and then it
will go back to the TC um with our recommendation either it's consistent or not and then that will be there will be a public hearing with um the potential for adoption at uh a following township
committee meeting. So with regard to consistency, if you remember at the beginning of the March meeting, you know, Mary Beth Lanigan presented the amendments to the township housing element fair share plan. And
specifically, we talked about the 1260 or Mary Beth talked about the 1260 South River Road site as being a substitute site for other parcels that had been in the housing plan. And what did the um
amended housing plan was adopted by this board at the beginning of March and it essentially said up to 130 units would be needed to be developed on this site. So with regard to that,
you know, that's the housing element of the master plan. This redevelopment plan is certainly consistent with that. It's also consistent with the 2010 master plan for Cranberry and the subsequent 2019 re uh re-examination.
Both of those documents didn't foresee the fourth round of affordable housing. Wouldn't go that far. But they did acknowledge that uh affordable housing, finding sites for affordable housing in Cranberry was going to be a challenge and especially going forward. Um but
that you know highquality design and um you know materials, architecture, etc. was paramount. It was paramount in the existing affordable housing developments that are in Cranberry and in any future site. So the redevelopment plan that is
before you, it contemplates uh a development that or permits a development of 15 dwelling units per acre on the site, which uh if you did
the math, you may realize would would equal greater than 130 units. And that was a decision I think by the subcommittee, the affordable housing subcommittee to leave the potential for future development of affordable housing
on this site. So this redevelopment plan subsequent when it's needed in the inevitable fifth round of housing. So this plan allows for that. Uh this plan was put together by um my
firm but in consultation with the affordable housing subcommittee uh as well as um some insight from the potential or prospective redeveloper of the site who had done some architectural
concept plans and renderings. Um the those are included in this document. They're not we can't treat them as site plans ex you know they're they're more concept plans. This is what we're looking for. This is the general layout,
the site design and this is sort of the general types of architecture that we're we're looking for. Um so we tried to put in um to the best of our abilities the
design guidelines and some of the design standards that will result in a high quality project which is obviously incredibly important. uh well not to to everyone but particularly in Cranberry that it has a record of really nice
looking um beautiful affordable housing projects and so that is something that we hope and and firmly believe that this plan will affectuate. So ultimately what we would have to decide tonight as I said is is it consistent
with the master plan? what I would present to the board is it is uh but I'm you know can answer any questions and I can answer any questions I mean the board has the right to make any recommendations as well if there's
anything that they think is um not clearly delineated in the plan or has any outstanding questions you know it can be brought to the attention of the township committee if needed >> so I'll just start off by say thank Thank you for all the work that you've
done and I know you've done a herculean effort in trying to you know basically heard cats here >> and and and try to get everything you know with our subcommittees and you know the township committee and all interested parties and everybody to try
to codify this together when when you came with Mary Beth Lanigan and and and made the presentation to the board. It doesn't sound like there's that many different changes from that >> correct >> to now. That's number. Is that a fair observation?
>> That is 100% accurate. Yes. And then the only subsequent change is the potential to put in some additional units which the subcommittee and the board kind of gave you the indication last time that
>> the flexibility >> the flexibility to do that >> built-in flexibility um for that you know in anticipation that >> there there may be a fifth round and was like >> oh I count on it. >> I would count on it. Yes. Yeah.
>> So, um, so in essence, so what the board at the township committee I'm just trying to get us to a point here, what the township committee pass is essentially what you're presenting tonight. So, we just have to say it's either consistent or not consistent
again based on the the the the few I'd say they're almost negligible changes from what you had before because we're talking about the same site. We're talking about potentially just a few different units. Um the concept plans
that were shown um they're going to have to come to the board anyway to have anything approved anyhow. So So you know they're concept plans. They're just um >> direct, you know, doodles on the paper right now. They show the potential of what can go there.
>> Yep. Educated doodles. >> They're educated doodles. >> Educated doodles. I I think um what it's important for the board to know the next steps presuming that the township committee adopts this redevelopment plan is that a prospective developer will be
named redeveloper and they will most likely I think their anticipation is that they will be coming to this board for preliminary site plan approval similar to how this board handled 1275 last summer >> where
Pardon me, I'm all confused. 1250 1260 1274 >> um sorry 1274 and it um whereas as you may recall it was a preliminary site plan in order for the developer to apply
for tax credits for 100% affordable housing project which was would be the case here. Uh and then of course they came back last month with more final you know renderings site plan etc. uh having received the tax credits. So I believe
that that is the um path forward with this uh potential the prospective redeveloper as well that they would come here for preliminary site plan first >> and and Mary Beth has blissed off on this too. Correct. >> Oh yes absolutely. Yes. And as she did
and she and her colleague reviewed it with um minor modifications. >> Okay. Does the board have any other questions or comments? I guess I have one additional question. When it goes back to the township committee, does it that
we're we're handing it off. We don't see it again. Is that what we're saying? >> That's correct. It'll come before, you know, for a public hearing >> at the township. >> At the township committee. Yes. >> But no, this is sort of
this would be it. Yeah. >> Does anybody from the board have any questions about this? I mean, it's this isn't something that we're hearing for the first time. We heard a very detailed I I I thought very well thought out uh
presentation the last time with Mary Beth when she was here. Um and really laid out and even even the township didn't hear that initial presentation. So, I think I was very impressed by what
I heard and didn't feel uncomfortable with us passing along initially over to the township committee for the first reading. So, um if they did not change anything, um I'm willing to move it along unless anybody else has any
questions or comments on this. It's just one more step in our process to complete our affordable housing journey here and what we need to do to be compliant and everything we need to do here. So, we're
we're kind of in a lock with the township committee on this this whole process. And again, should we approve this tonight, then goes back to the township committee. They will have a hearing and you know hopefully they will approve it and then it goes and then
once that happens then the you know developer will be named and then we start that whole process of like we did with 1274 last week. They're going to have to come in with with an application and the whole nine yards. So go ahead. The only thing that I would mention is that the process is
less condensed and um stressful on this property than it was the need to get that consistency review on the other affordable housing site. This is a little bit um because of that application deadline for the tax
credits. Um there's more like breathing room around all of our collars. So, I just wanted to give this board the assurance that it's uh less compressed, less stressful um and that it would follow the normal planning board process like any other project so that you would
have ample time to review that and we're not under a a more stringent guideline. So, kind of back to your regular programming. >> Any questions by with anybody? We're good. Okay,
I'm going to push this along for approval. Let me make So, can I have a motion to approve the consistency review for Granberry Township Ordinance 042609,
an ordinance of the township cranberry, Middle Sex County, New Jersey, adopting a redevelopment plan for 1260 South River Road. I have a motion, please. Can I have a second, please? >> Second.
>> All right. Roll call for the consistency review of the redevelopment plan. Miss Elawi, >> yes. >> Mr. Giddings, >> yes. >> Miss Conram, >> yes. >> Mr. Mildenberg, >> yes. >> Mr. Mucelli, >> yes. >> And Mr. Whitman? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion passed.
>> Okay. I think that is it for tonight. May I have a motion to adjurnn? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> No. Anybody? Okay. See y'all.